This article is the documented story of how a political religious movement called Dominionism gained control of the Republican Party, then took over Congress, then took over the White House, and now is sealing the conversion of America to a theocracy by taking over the American Judiciary. It’s the story of why and how “the wrath of God Almighty” will be unleashed against the middle class, against the poor, and against the elderly and sick of this nation by George W. Bush and his army of Republican Dominionist “rulers.”

At least those freaky Christians had nothing to worry about. What? Did they think men would demand to marry men someday or that the humanist manifesto would expand to invent a new definition of "family?" I mean, those Humanists signing the Manifesto all come from a highly educated backgrounds. They know waht a human family is for Darwin's sake.

I mean all of the millions and millions and millions and millions of human beings murdered by the secular -atheists that run communist humanists countries must have been from "bad" humanists, err, I mean atheists, or just a figment of people like Schaefer's imagination.

Or that children would be fatherless in numbers in the juvenile justice system and mental health fields that defy "logic?"

Or that abortion would be legalized and promoted as a form of "birth control?" No of course not. 45-million abortions since Roe v. Wade? Where do those numbers come from anyway.

Christian dummy's.

I mean, it's not like they would ever do abortions on babaies as they were being partially born in the third trimester. Even "humanists" know that their own science of DNA proves that a human is completely an individual with all of the genetic material for that individualism to be a fact, from the moment of conception. I mean ramming a vacuum tube into a babies skull and sucking out its brains? That couldn't happen in a civilized "secular" society. No, that sounds more like a religious human sacrifice! Like Molech worship. Certainly no sane women would have that done to her child, or that the practice would be supported by educated people.

What were those Chrsitians thinking "back in the day?"

That prayer and Christmas would be illegal but that homosexuality would be taught to grade school kids? Or that "morality" is now spelled c-o-n-d-o-m?

Man were they off base huh?

See how many children these days are living in homes and being raised by their biological parents. Especially in the inner city where all of the humanist-altruism has reaped such golden rewards of enlightening the masses.

It's not like the Bible would ever be under attack in any western civilized nation. Of course not. Humanists believe in cultural diversity.

///

No, humanism and secualrism are the evils once only imagined, proven on the five o'clock news every day now. And of course the classroom.

The Chrsitains in the fifties were better prophets than are given credit for these days. maybe it is time for a little truth to dispell the spell of humanism and atheism's grip on the populace.

That is if empiricism is any guide.

Author: CJK Posted: 08/15/2005 02:51 AM

Quote:

The Chrsitains in the fifties were better prophets than are given credit for these days. maybe it is time for a little truth to dispell the spell of humanism and atheism's grip on the populace.

Thank you for that objective statement.

Author: micatala Posted: 08/15/2005 10:19 AM

AlAyeti wrote:

What were those Chrsitians thinking "back in the day?"

That prayer and Christmas would be illegal

Prayer and Christmas are not illegal.

Not sure what the general question for debate is here.

Author: The Persnickety Platypus Posted: 08/15/2005 10:50 PM

AlAyeti, problem is, the "evils" committed by humanists and athiests in no way force us to change the way we think and act. We as Christians are not being forced to become gay. No one is forcing us to abort our babies.

The same cannot be said for your theocratic notion. The general population would be required to comply to biblical laws. I will never support any such intolerance, until you give me some biblical evidence for why I should. As of yet, you have not given me a single scripture. I cited a few in support of secular concession (in the "Democrats Attacking Christians" thread), but you neglected to respond.

Quote:

I mean all of the millions and millions and millions and millions of human beings murdered by the secular -atheists that run communist humanists countries must have been from "bad" humanists, err, I mean atheists, or just a figment of people like Schaefer's imagination.

And theocratic governments of course don't commit attrocities of ANY kind. Heck, just look at Catholic Europe before the reformation! Great place. They didn't crucify people for differing opinions, abolish God-given freedoms, or anything of that sort. Gosh, I wish America was like that. Then we could wage holy wars against middle eastern countries like Iraq for access to their oil. Surely that's what God would want.

Author: CJK Posted: 08/17/2005 02:46 AM

Quote:

Not sure what the general question for debate is here.

Quote:

AlAyeti, problem is, the "evils" committed by humanists and athiests in no way force us to change the way we think and act. We as Christians are not being forced to become gay. No one is forcing us to abort our babies.

Could you please read the article that I've posted before you find something to question or debate?

Author: micatala Posted: 08/17/2005 12:10 PM

I read the article. In fact, I had read it some weeks ago when it was posted on another thread.

I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but I would say there is some reason to be concerned about 'Dominionism.' Some of what the author writes may be a bit on the paranoid side.

No, I would not want a theocratic state of any sort. People of faith should certainly feel free to discuss their faith in the public arena, and public servants should not feel they have to hide their faith. Having said that, government officials should understand that laws and policies that apply to all people, those of different faiths and no faith at all, should not be informed solely by a narrow theological perspective. If the law or policy cannot be justified on grounds that most reasonable people of a variety of perspectives can agree on, then it should not be law or policy.

Obviously it is not always easy to decide if this is the case, but it is the goal I would hope we strive for. To the extent that Dominionism is opposed to this idea, I think Dominionism should be opposed and those who espouse its views should be looked at warily when being considered for policy making positions.

THis, of course, does not mean people of faith should be looked at skeptically just because they are people of faith. Any person, whatever their faith or lack thereof, who can show they have some understanding of and respect for people of other positions, could potentially make a good policy maker (IMHO).